Ray Mitcham

Sorry Ray, I wasn't being evasive, I just assumed everyone knew who the Man shielding Eyes was, it is the man that has both hands to his head shielding his eyes, he is at the end of the line that I drew, the line is touching his elbow. The one in the short sleeved shirt.

No, it is not strange that DOORMANS shirt is not washed out in the sunlight, DOORMAN was wearing a dark reddish colored shirt, how could it be washed out by the sunlight?

Sunlight will wash out lighter colors. You can see in the FBI photo that the dark pants stay dark, retain contrast, the light colored vertically striped shirt blends into one color.

Lovelady' shirt was not light coloured stripes. It was red and white stripes. If the sun bleached out the red stripes of Lovelady then it should have bleached out the red shirt of doorman.

The man you say is Lovelady, is wearing a white shirt with rolled up sleeves. Not a short sleeve shirt.

Ray here is an unaltered FBI photograph.

Can you readily descern stripes?

How about now?

Strange that the shirt of doorman isn't bleached out in the same photo, isn't it?

Now answer the question I put. Which one of the people on the steps do you consider to be Lovelady?

Ray, I agree, it is evident the stripes cannot be readily discerned in Altgens #6 or Couch film.

No Bob, not "cannot be readily discerned". They can't be discerned period.

Perhaps you could indicate on the photo which person you consider to be Lovelady if it isn't "Doorman"

The government did not provide conclusive evidence or proofs that LOVELADY was DOORMAN when it was absolutely essential to do so. As posted the evidence the government collected told a different story and that was LOVELADY could not possibly have been DOORMAN. Based on evidence collected by government it is utterly impossible that LOVELADY was DOORMAN.

The news media ignored this elephant in the room since the FBI evidence on the shirt release in 1964, but a "conspiracy advocate" in 1967 set out to prove the case the government was unable to do and ever since conspiracy advocates have been in lock-step arguing in favor of the governments case, ignoring government evidence to sustain their positions. And what Josiah has offered you is nothing but hearsay and unsworn testimony. You can hear LOVELADY telling the HSCA investigator that he would not describe the shirt he wore that day, why would he have described it to Thompson or Jackson or Groden?

The fact is the shirt is a key issue, the news media had to immediately comprehend the shirts did not match, that LOVELADY could not have been DOORMAN, what was the reaction, they printed LOVELADY FBI photos and proclaimed the shirts matched, end of story. This shows the amount of control the conspirators had over the news, any agent of the media could have clarified this issue, they didn't and they couldn't.

Josiah Thompson, proclaimed LOVELADY was just misunderstood, the FBI agents that wrote the report that accompanied the shirt photographs must have been insane to write a report that destroyed the governments theory of LOVELADY was DOORMAN, they should have been fired on the spot or exiled or re-interviewed LOVELADY, HOOVER must have been more than surprised that the shirts didn't match, the WC apparently couldn't resolve the discrepancy so they never addressed LOVELADY concerning the conflict and the media said hey look sheeple it is the same shirt, really.

But Josiah set the record straight where the government was unable to do so. You got to be kidding believing Josiah non-sense.

You can bow down at the feet of Pundit Thompson, I choose to ignore his proclamations and go where the evidence dictates. LOVELADY is not DOORMAN, he wore a red and white vertical striped short sleeved shirt during the assassination, he can be seen on the steps shielding his eyes, he can be seen walking down the street with SHELLEY, significant evidence dictates that this is the most true.

Please show me a photo which shows Lovelady in a red and white striped shirt outside the TSBD.

I agree entirely, Tommy. (I call it suffering from "Cinqueitis.")

Regarding the shirt, simple, he wasn't wearing the red and white striped shirt.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with LOVELADYS claims of what he wore on 11/22/1963 here is the FBI report that accompanied the photographs already posted

The revisionist insist that LOVELADY was confused and the FBI was incompetent. They insist LOVELADY wore plaid the day of the assassination dispite what LOVELADY claimed officially to the FBI agents on 02/29/1964, what the FBI and the WC accepted as true and the media proclaimed as fact, that the shirt seen in the FBI photographs matched the attire of DOORMAN.

Despite LOVELADYS flat refusal to describe his shirt to the HSCA investigator in 1977, NO! is what LOVELADY replied.

In the FBI report you display.

...LOVELADY stated his picture has appeared in several publications which picture depicts him on the far left side of the front doorway to the TSBD. LOVELADY was exhibited a picture appearing on pages 4-5 of the magazine entitled “Four Dark Days in History” copyright 1963 by Special Publications, Inc. 6527 Hollywood Boulevard., Los Angerles 25, California. He immediately identified the picture of the individual on the far left side of the doorway of the TSBD as being his photograph.....

Ray, thank you for making the post more complete.

Every word can be of significance.

FRAZIER arrow pointing directly toward Man Shielding Eyes, over DOORMANs head.

This is deception. Smoke and mirrors, more than sufficient to have fooled the children.

LOVELADYS arrow indicating his location cannot be discerned in any manner. Blatant deception.

Looks like the deception is yours, Bob. The arrow Lovelady drew was as shown here in yellow. (You can see the lower arrow line in black and the upper part of the shaft of the arrow on the white background but the top arrow line, and the lower part of the shaft are lost in the black background, in your photo.)

Nice try, but no cigar.

BALL demanded LOVELADY identify himself within Altgens #6, or did he?

Mr. BALL "Draw an arrow down to that, do it in the dark"

It is obvious that LOVELADY identified himself in Altgens #6 in such a manner that was and IS incomprehensible. It was imperative that LOVELADY not honestly disclose where he was located within Altgens #6, the only reason this could possibly be is that LOVELADY was not DOORMAN and he could not be made to lie and say he was. LOVELADY identifying himself within Altgens #6 would have given the game away.

The full question.

Mr Ball." Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?

Mr. LOVELADY - "Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating)."

Found this on Fetzer's site:

"By Texas standards,Molina is a very short and portly man, perhaps barely five feet tall. His work attire as Credit Manager consisted of a dress shirt and tie. Molina “took up a positionon the top step of the entrance of the TSBD for the purpose of watching the Presidential Motorcade” (CE1381, pg 66). He also testified before the Warren Commission on 4/7/64, and 25 years later was interviewed by the Dallas Morning News on 11/20/88 in observance of the 25th anniversary of the assassination. He has never been interviewed or spoken in public since."

If PM and Frazier are both standing on the top step, as both testified Molina and Frazier testified to being, PM is obviously a foot shorter than Frazier. As Frazier testified to being six feet tall, this would make PM five feet tall; exactly the height Fetzer claims Molina was.

Is Prayerman dressed in a dress shirt and tie?

Just because the witnesses said they didn't see him, doesn't mean he wasn't there. If he went out to the front whilst the witnesses were watching the parade, and then went back in before they turned around, then they obviously wouldn't see him, despite the fact that he was there. Where's the dispute?

And me.

Hi Ray

Is there no-one else at all in the research community that has a computer that could do this? Is it worth posting a thread on Ed Forum asking for someone with that technology to help out?

Hi Vanessa,

I'm sure you are right. There must be someone on here who is competent in the art of upgrading the Prayer man frame. Unfortunately, it's not me. If you haven't read "A Deeper Darker Truth" by Donald T. Phillips, about the computer work of Tom Wilson, i recommend it. (It's available on Amazon.)

If, as I believe, Tom's system works as he said it did, then he has shown the problems with the Zap film, the autopsy photos, the Moorman polaroid photo and others.

Hi Lee:

Nice to see you posting again and I look forward to your overview on Sean's work in this area. It is a subject matter that never ceases to intrigue and one that I have been interested in for a long time.

Gary

Thanks, Gary. Good to see you again. This topic is game changer. We really need to promote this work and try to obtain a high quality scan of the relevant films.

The question of Prayerman, IMO, can be settled with today's technology. The copy contained on the special edition of JFK by Robin Unger is from a standard definition scan of 576i or 480i. I wonder what a 2k or 4k scan of the negatives could do to the detail in these films?

It's a pity that Tom Wilson is no longer with us, as his computer program would probably have helped.

Indeed welcome back, Wack.. Great post regarding Prayerman. I wonder what has happened to Sean. Have pm'd him, but no reply.

Sorrells said that from when the shots were fired to when he returned to the TSBD, it was twenty to twenty five minutes. He then went round the rear of the building spoke to several people and then walked out front where he met Brennan and Euins. (Add about five minutes for these after he arrived back at the TSBD).

WC testimony.

"Mr. SORRELS - I don't believe it could have been more than 20 or 25 minutes at the very most.

Mr. STERN - Then you arrived at the Book Depository Building, and did you see any police officers outside the building?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes; there were officers. I recall seeing officers. I could not say any specific one.
Now, as I came into the back of the building, there was a colored man standing on the rear platform, a loading platform. And he was just standing there looking off into the distance. I don't think he knew what happened.
And I said to him, "Did you see anyone run out the back?"
He said, "No, sir."
"Did you see anyone leave the back way?"
"No, sir."
Mr. STERN - Did you get his name?
Mr. SORRELS - No, sir; I did not. I did not stop to do that, because I figured he was an employee of the building.
I went on the inside of the building and asked someone for the manager and they pointed to Mr. Truly.
I identified myself to Mr. Truly.
Mr. STERN - Just a minute.
Did you establish how long that man had been on the loading platform?
Mr. SORRELS - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. STERN - There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up?
Mr. SORRELS - I did not see one; no, sir.
Mr. STERN - And you were able to enter the building without identifying yourself?
Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir.
Mr. STERN - Then you got inside the building and what did you do?
Mr. SORRELS - I asked for the manager, and I was directed to Mr. Truly. He was standing there.
I went up and identified myself to him. I said, "I want to get a stenographer, and we would like to have you put down the names and addresses of every employee of the building, in the building."
And I then walked on out the front door and asked, "Did anyone here see anything?"
And someone pointed to Mr. Brennan."

This seems to make him talking to Brennan and Euins at about 12.55 or later. The description of Oswald was first broadcast at 12.48. So the description couldn't have come from Brennan via Sorrells.

As the description doesn't match what Brennan said anyway, it must have come from another source.

Ray Mitcham,

I have one of the one-dollar silver certificates.

I believe one of the correct questions to ask about the JFK assassination is whether individuals who were part of the Fed or who supported the Fed had an incentive to see JFK dead. Certainly some of these individuals were very powerful.

What I don't know is how much of a threat JFK appeared to be to the Fed and its supporters. If JFK was seen as a serious threat, I can imagine easily some of the powerful individuals in question lining up behind a plan to get rid of JFK.

Question: Did LBJ rescind Executive Order 11110? If so, when?

Jon G Tidd,

The article I link above states this.

"According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.

IMO you need to look no further than JFK's notion to bring the power of money back to the US Government rather than the FEDERAL RESERVE.

They just couldn't afford to let him get his own way.

"On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

Even you have observed just "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

You have blown up my "little bit" comment completely out of all reasonable proportion. I didn't MEASURE the amount of "bunching" that we can see in JFK's jacket in the Croft photo. And YOU haven't "measured" it either. It's impossible to measure the degree of bunching from just looking at the photos and films.

So when you continue to post on numerous forums the preposterous argument that my one "little bit" remark somehow means I have admitted that the SBT is completely wrong, you're revealing yourself to be a very silly person.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.

You're displaying your propensity for preposterousness yet again, Clifford. Because only a fool would continue to claim (year after year) that the clothing of JFK somehow trumps the autopsy picture of the dead President which shows precisely where the bullet entered his BODY -- in the upper back.

The only important question is -- what happened to the bullets which caused the back and throat wounds?

There was only one bullet that struck either of those body parts, Cliff. So your use of the plural ("bullets") is not supported by any evidence at all.

I can easily answer your question -- CE399 passed through both bullet holes in the upper back and throat of JFK, and then that bullet went on to hit Governor Connally--which is just exactly what both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded. No other scenario is even remotely believable (nor supported by any of the overall evidence in this case). And Cliff Varnell's unsupportable claptrap don't qualify as "believable" (or reasonable).

David, in the autopsy photo you display, can you explain the complete blacking out of the back of the head, where all the Parkland witnesses said the wound was?

Bump. for DVP

Paul, whilst believing that the back yard photos are indeed fakes, I wonder why you think Oswald would concoct three fakes using Roscoe White as a body double.

ARRB MD87

After the assassination, Lipsey said that he and Wehle met the body at Andrews Air Force Base and placed it in a hearst-to be transported to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Lipsey mentioned that he and Wehle then flew by helicopter to Bethesda and took JFK into the back of Bethesda. A decoy hearst had been driven to the front. After bringing the body into Bethesda, Lipsey said that Jackie Kennedy and the family entered the front of Bethesda and travelled to the "Presidential suite."

My understanding was that a decoy was supposed to allow the easy delivery of JFK's body to the morgue while everyone was crowded around the decoy in front... what he never mentions is how the body was moved from one coffin to another and when.

I think this little statement gives away more of the Bethesda charade then he cared to...

Dennis David and O'Connor corroborate the entrance in the back, a helicopter and a black hearse... which dovetails into the AF-1 tape section referring to a black hearse...

Yet in the end I agree with you Ray... the only purpose of a decoy is to get JFK to the morgue before anything "official" is recognized so that Humes or whoever, does their thing.

This is the same old tired line as, "Saving the family anguish" as an excuse for doing whatever they wanted to do....

The disembark to the right front of the plane and helicoptered off to Bethesda is really the only way the body can get to Bethesda so much earlier than the motorcade...

DJ

David, don't know whether you ever read this essay by A.J.MacDonald Jr.

https://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/the-arrival-of-jfks-body-at-bethesda-naval-hospital-what-i-saw/

Seems to confirm your helicopter arrival.

David, it was never explained why a decoy coffin was required, in the first place.

IMO it was to enable the shenanigans to take place. What other possible reason was there?

Bob, didn't software engineer, Tom Wilson, conclude that the head shot happened further down Elm Street. (I forget what distance he said). Could this help with your calculations?

Even you have observed just "a little bit" of jacket bunching in Dealey Plaza.

You have blown up my "little bit" comment completely out of all reasonable proportion. I didn't MEASURE the amount of "bunching" that we can see in JFK's jacket in the Croft photo. And YOU haven't "measured" it either. It's impossible to measure the degree of bunching from just looking at the photos and films.

So when you continue to post on numerous forums the preposterous argument that my one "little bit" remark somehow means I have admitted that the SBT is completely wrong, you're revealing yourself to be a very silly person.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to be associated with the throat wound.

You're displaying your propensity for preposterousness yet again, Clifford. Because only a fool would continue to claim (year after year) that the clothing of JFK somehow trumps the autopsy picture of the dead President which shows precisely where the bullet entered his BODY -- in the upper back.

The only important question is -- what happened to the bullets which caused the back and throat wounds?

There was only one bullet that struck either of those body parts, Cliff. So your use of the plural ("bullets") is not supported by any evidence at all.

I can easily answer your question -- CE399 passed through both bullet holes in the upper back and throat of JFK, and then that bullet went on to hit Governor Connally--which is just exactly what both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded. No other scenario is even remotely believable (nor supported by any of the overall evidence in this case). And Cliff Varnell's unsupportable claptrap don't qualify as "believable" (or reasonable).

David, in the autopsy photo you display, can you explain the complete blacking out of the back of the head, where all the Parkland witnesses said the wound was?

LOL Not bad for a dumb logger eh?

You work it out with "logs", Bob? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Thanks, Bob, you explained it in a much clearer way that I. Must be the weather.